Main menu

Tag Archives: Sit/Lie Laws

Post navigation

NOTES BY NORSE: Santa Cruz’s anti-homeless panhandling law–Municipal Ordinance 9.10–was one of the first in California in 1994 to enact a wide swath of location and time prohibitions. Prohibitions that have nothing to do with aggressive or abusive behavior. They were enacted along with the “no sitting” law and prohibitions against protests in downtown Santa Cruz. It was done at the behest of then Councilmember, former Supervisor, and Bookshop Santa Cruz owner Neal Coonerty to remake the downtown in a more conservative and business-friendly image. With the connivance and consent of current Council member and former Mayor Cynthia Mathews. It also happened around the time that protests demanding suspension of the Sleeping, Blanket, and Camping Bans were mounting with early pro-homeless decisions in the Tobe case.
These anti-poor laws were expanded numerous times in the decades that followed. They criminalize holding up a sign silently at night and any sparechanging on 98% of the sidewalks in downtown, business, and beachfront districts. Also banned: doing so with a backpack, doing so in a group of two no matter how peacefully or silently, doing so while in possession of a dog (but not a cat, mercifully exempting Gizmo, the beloved Pacific Ave. habituee), and other such clearly unconstitutional restrictions.
The only time any section of the nasty SCMC 9.10 was taken to court, attorneys won damages and forced City Council to make changes in the law. Unfortunately these were just for a minor section–that which involved prohibitions against “profane” [written] language. A local man –John Maurer–was fed up with harassment from a fanatic SCPD “Community Service” Officer–for leaving his property to use the restroom and getting ticketed for it. He inserted in his cap “Fuck the Pigs” and was then cited for that for bad language panhandling. See “Powdering The Crooked Nose of The City’s Anti-Homeless Panhandling Law” at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/06/19/18281363.php
Some examples and background: https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/08/31/18689196.php “Two Men Cited Downtown on Sunday – One for His Dog, One for ?” . Relevant sections of the panhandling law can be found at https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/08/29/18657087.php “Deadly Downtown Ordinances“.
If you see police, “Hosts, or security thugs hassling panhandlers, musicians, vendors, or other poor locals, please video, audio, and post reports on indybay.org/santacruz .

NEW YORK, NY – MAY 18: A homeless woman rests while panhandling along Eighth Avenue in Manhattan on May 18, 2015 in New York City. As many parts of once seedy New York City have been transformed into family and shopping friendly environments, 8th Avenue near the Port Authority bus station is one of the last hold-outs to old gritty Manhattan. Last week a man was shot by police after he attacked numerous people with a hammer along a stretch of the street. There is a high police presence along the street and fights and arrests for vagrancy are common.

DENVER (AP) — Cities trying to limit panhandling in downtowns and tourist areas are facing a new legal hurdle because of a recent Supreme Court ruling that seemingly has nothing to do with asking for money.

Federal judges in at least three states have cited a June ruling by the high court on the size of church signs as a reason for overturning anti-panhandling laws or sending cases disputing those laws back to lower courts for review. One of those cases – in the western Colorado city of Grand Junction – has spurred Colorado communities including Denver and Boulder to suspend or change their laws restricting where and when people can panhandle.

The reason is something called content discrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that the town of Gilbert, Arizona, did not have the right to limit the size of signs put up to direct worshipers to services at a small church because the town didn’t set the same limits for real estate or political signs. The same issue has been raised in lawsuits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups challenging anti-panhandling laws.

U.S. District Judge Christine Arguello ruled on Sept. 30 that it was unconstitutional for Grand Junction to bar people from asking for money after dark and near bus stops and restaurant patios because they singled out a kind of speech – asking for money – for special treatment without a compelling reason.

Arguello had concluded earlier in the case brought by the state ACLU that the law was discriminatory but said the Supreme Court church signs ruling made it clear that laws that limit speech on broad topics, not just particular viewpoints, also amount to content discrimination. She let stand parts of the law that prohibit panhandlers from threatening people.

After the Grand Junction ruling, Boulder quickly got rid of panhandling restrictions along its pedestrian mall, Longmont suspended its enforcement of panhandling laws and the Denver City Council is considering removing its restrictions on when and where panhandlers can solicit money but plans to keeping its ban on threatening behavior. Colorado Springs also suspended portions of its law at the urging of the ACLU before the Grand Junction ruling.

Appeals courts also have sent challenges to anti-panhandling laws in Worcester, Massachusetts, and Springfield, Illinois, back to lower courts to reconsider them in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Decisions on both are still pending.

The debate over panhandling laws comes at a time when more cities have sought to restrict where people can ask for money. The National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty says 76 percent of cities banned panhandling in some locations in 2014, a 20 percent increase since 2011. Many cities say the laws are meant not to discourage giving to people in need but to protect residents and help keep their communities safe.

Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado, thinks most panhandling laws nationally have been written so broadly that many of them also will have to be changed because of the ruling. His lawyers plan to tell cities in Colorado about the changes they think are needed.

“The government can’t pass a law to ban all speech that’s annoying or irritating,” he said.

Some constitutional experts think the sign ruling also could have implications beyond panhandling including government regulation of advertising, securities and communications.

While some see that as a good thing for free speech, others, like Yale Law School Dean Robert Post, see potential problems. He said the ruling was written so broadly that it applies to commercial speech and could be used, for example, to try to block the Federal Trade Commission’s sanctions against misleading advertisements.

In Worcester, city officials plan to fight to keep limits banning panhandling near bus stops and ATMs as well as standing in medians for any reasons.

“We see it (panhandling restrictions) as one important piece of the puzzle of dealing with the opioid crisis in the country,” city solicitor David Moore said.

Springfield also doesn’t plan to give up on its restrictions that bar going up to people and directly asking for money in the city’s historic downtown, where tourists flock to see Abraham Lincoln’s house. Panhandlers are still allowed to hold signs soliciting donations, city corporation counsel Jim Zerkle said. The city has filed arguments in favor of keeping the law.

In Denver, it’s not clear how much of a difference the proposed changes will make on the street. The city says it’s averaged about 300 panhandling citations a year since its law took effect in 2000 and roughly two-thirds of those violations involved aggressive behavior, rather than violating the time and place limits it’s considering scrapping.

On a recent day, William Jones, 69, was one of several panhandlers set up along the city’s 16th Street Pedestrian Mall not far from one of the parking meters the city installed to raise money for the homeless and discourage panhandling.

Jones, a Navy veteran who has worked breaking horses, as a restaurant cook and in construction, said he does not care for the aggressive style. He sat on his walker with a sign, saying good morning people and waved back at a passing bus driver and an outreach worker from a homeless shelter.

Monterey Police have portrayed their enforcement of the city’s sit-lie ban as a friendly process where first-time violators are simply given a “warning” when found sitting or lying on sidewalks located downtown and in other commercial districts. On May 1, community members participating in a sit-in held on the sidewalk of Alvarado Street to protest the new law demonstrated the process isn’t quite that simple. More than a dozen individuals were confronted by police and forced to give them their name, date of birth, and home address as part of the verbal warning that they were in violation of the site-lie ordinance. For the past several months, community members have been organizing sit-ins to oppose the ban, which they say unfairly targets homeless people and travelers.

As the warnings were being issued, a few individuals joined the group and sat down right in front of police. Some did comply with the warning and stood up during the encounter, but the majority continued to sit. Three police officers were deployed to the scene; two issued the warnings while Sergeant Bob Guinvarch photographed several people and looked on.

Officer Roobash instructed individuals several times they shouldn’t be opposing the ordinance by openly defying it.

“You need to take this to the City Council and proper channels,” he said.

He asked if any of them had written the city to complain, and several demonstrators explained they had been contacting local officials since 2013 when the Monterey City Council initially discussed the matter and decided not to move forward with a sit-lie ban at that time. The council reversed course in 2014, however, and enacted a re-submitted proposal for a sit-lie ordinance.

There was some irony in Roobash, a police officer, instructing demonstrators to complain to the city. It was Monterey Chief of Police Phil Penko who pushed hard for a sit-lie ban, and he authored the 2013 and 2014 city staff reports that requested council members approve one without any alternatives presented.

Additionally, Monterey Police have dedicated an entire section of their website, which is titled “Homeless Issues,” to give business owners and the public instructions on how to report homeless people to the police.

“The following information is provided to assist business people and individual community members in properly addressing incidents and concerns regarding the homeless and related quality of life issues,” the Monterey Police website states.

A tab on the homeless issues page lists what it calls “related city code,” a list of ten ordinances that can be applied to street people. The new sit-lie ordinance is not on the list yet, but the other laws referenced include: “begging prohibited,” “camping prohibited outside of designated areas,” “obstructing sidewalk or street prohibited,” “11 p.m. curfew for minors,” “loitering in parking facilities prohibited,” and “camping in vehicles prohibited on public property from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.”

While receiving a warning for sitting at the May 1 demonstration, one person told police, “I invite you to give me a citation and I am not getting up until you do.” He later explained that he wanted to be issued a citation for sitting so that he could fight it in court and have the law “invalidated.”

Another demonstrator told police that he was a “homeless man” and he felt “extremely offended” that officers were attempting to prevent him from sitting on the sidewalk. He explained later how he uses alcohol to cope with life on the streets, which puts him at risk of violating the sit-lie law, and being targeted by police.

As Monterey activists were demonstrating to demand the return of the right to rest yesterday, Santa Cruz activists served coffee and fliers in front of the Main Library. We signed up more opponents of the planned “No Parking for the Homeless” in the streets around the Homeless (Lack of) Services Center, cooked up behind closed doors by the SCPD, the Public Works Department, and various businesses on Fern, Coral, and Limekiln Streets. We gathered 53 signatures in the last few days

Later on Friday two HUFF activists supported the right to assemble at Elm and Cedar (near or across the street from the Cafe Pergolesi) which police and security guards have been regularly attacking with false “obstructing the sidewalk” threats and tickets. The activist weapon: prominently displayed video equipment. Apparently the presence of folks and recording does make a difference. Officer Winston, reported hung out for half an hour, but didn’t demand youth gathering there move on–as police and security guards have been doing with regularity. You have a “right to stand” on the sidewalk if you move out of the way for passersby when requested to do so.
Even if you’re young, homeless, or a traveler with a backpack.

Ironically, it is illegal to sit down on the same sidewalks (on Elm St. or along the Pergolesi side of Cedar St.) as well as anywhere in the Elm and Cedar City parking lot (even in your own vehicle, legally parked). As it has expanded the mini-police state for homeless people, the Santa Cruz “no sitting” law (MC 9.50.012) is much harsher than the Monterey law and has been on the books for more than two decades now (and reduced legal sitting space downtown to less than 1% of the sidewalks). Though free-standing commercial signs in front of businesses are blatantly illegal, no store owner or manager has, to my knowledge been fined or otherwise sanctioned.

One possible strategy for the bold: If you’re being harassed for sitting down on the sidewalk on or near Pacific Avenue–or see it happening to someone else–request the cop issue a citation. To the nearest business hosting an illegal free-standing sign on the sidewalk in violation of city law. There’s at least one on every block. Video or audio recording would help, but a witness is also okay.

If–as is most likely–the cop declines to issue the citation, note his name and badge number, the time, sign location, and name and address of the criminal shop. File a complaint with both the SCPD and the City Manager, and post it on indybay. Ask to speak to the cop’s superior if he refuses to be helpful. Document it as you go.

HUFF toddles on looking over the latest attack on Medical Marijuana and its impact on low-income folks here, surveys the Right 2 Rest scene in Sacramento after today’s protest and Senate Housing and Transportation Committee vote, scopes out a Thursday Back-to-the-Library Cafe HUFF at 9:30 AM 4-9, considers Armory closing on or around the 15th, and considers new strategies for an independent campaign against police militarization re: the homeless. Report on the Monterey sit-lie protests, Berkeley’s Ambassador-Host homeless beating, and more! All with coffee and crunchables.

HUFF agenda candidates: Follow-Up on the BigJohnWatch at the Library; Lobbying and Updates on the Right to Rest Law coming up for Transportation Committee Hearing; Creating a Santa Cruz R2R law; Supporting the First Friday Sitting Ban Protest in Monterey; Non-Report from Berkeley’s People’s Park; …and too much other stuff–as usual. We supply the coffee; you supply the frenzy.

Individuals with Direct Action Monterey Network (DAMN) and other community members returned to Alvarado Street in Monterey on March 13 for a second sit-in. They are protesting a law that went into effect in October that makes sitting or lying on commercial sidewalks a crime from 7am until 9pm. DAMN’s first demonstration against the sitting ban was held on February 13, exactly one month prior, and they say they plan to return again next month for a similar action. The idea to schedule the protests monthly was a calculated decision. The phrasing of the new law states that if an individual receives a warning from the police to stop sitting, they must not sit on the sidewalk again for one month, or they can be cited and or arrested.

“Join us as we sit and lie in solidarity with the homeless, travelers, and all people targeted by police and their brutality,” an announcement for the March 13 event read.

DAMN members are not using the word “brutality” lightly. As recently as two months ago they received a first hand account of police officers in Monterey physically beating a homeless person who had been lying on Alvarado Street’s sidewalk.

Those sitting during the demonstration held protest signs, and after reading them, one of the first people to pass the group said loudly, “Next thing you know, you can’t walk!”

A few minutes later Jason Coniglio, the owner of My Attic Bar & Lounge, asked them if they weren’t unfairly targeting his business, since they had already demonstrated in front of it once before.

One of the demonstrators then asked him if he had spoken out against the sit-lie law, and Coniglio did not respond.

Another downtown business owner spent a good deal of time sharing his list of complaints about street people with the group of demonstrators. One of his claims was that over the years he had offered jobs to a number of different people who he had seen panhandling, and none had ever taken him up on the offer of work.

In May of 2013, when the Monterey City Council was first considering a sit-lie ban, Monterey Chief of Police Philip J. Penko authored the staff report that explained a sit-lie ban proposal was brought to them because for several months city staff had received complaints about “a decreased sense of safeness” in downtown Monterey, around Fisherman’s Wharf, and long Roberts Road and Garden Road. Fred Meurer, who was City Manager at the time, told council members that the bulk of complaints came from the Old Monterey Business Association membership. The council decided at that time not to study the concept further, but increased pressure from the business community and the police led to a sit-lie ordinance being passed in 2014.

During DAMN’s first sit-lie protest on February 13, there was a strong police presence on foot monitoring the group’s activities, but not so for the second protest, and so far no one has been warned by police to stop sitting at the demonstrations.

NORSE’S NOTES: Following in the pawprints of its elder bigoted brother Santa Cruz to the North, Monterey has reversed itself from a similar proposal a year ago and passed a Sitting Ban that is somewhat less stringent. In 2013, a big turnout of homeless activists, housed supporters, and social service providers sent a similar Ban back to the staff, from which it has emerged zombie-like to stalk the homeless community.

The Monterey law, unlike the Santa Cruz law applies only from 7 AM to 9 PM, mirroring a similar law proposed (but defeated) in Berkeley. Santa Cruz’s Sitting Ban is 24-hours long (MC 9.50.012). Like the Monterey law, Santa Cruz’s was passed with no stats proving any kind of meaningful business concerns other than the anxieties of post-earthquake Santa Cruz and the special interests of merchants, then lead by Bookshop Santa Cruz owner Neal Coonerty.

On Monday in Monterey, sitting on the sidewalk was still OK but by Wednesday, you could be facing a citation from police for doing the same.

“They are interfering with my business,” said Joseph Aiello of people who he says are often sitting around outside his jewelry store.

The idea of a sit-lie ordinance has been a long time coming for Aiello and his business. He says that people loitering outside his shop deters potential customers.

“When they see panhandlers out on the street, they feel uncomfortable and therefore, they walk by real fast to get to where they are going,” said Aiello.

Starting Wednesday, between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., officers have the authority to tell people to get up from the sidewalk in downtown, Cannery Row and along Fremont Street.

The first offense is a warning.

“For the next 30 days, that warning stays in effect and if you are found doing it again you get a citation,” Monterey police said.

Officers insist they won’t just be targeting homeless individuals.

“If this is something that is applied and and targets a specific group of people, we’re gonna catch a lot of flack for that,” said Monterey Police Chief Phil Penko. “The application is the key.”

Penko say he hopes his department doesn’t have to write a single ticket even though Aiello says his business, a staple on Alvarado Street for the last 30 years, is in trouble and the loitering isn’t helping.

“The downtown businesses are struggling, struggling to stay in business and it does not help or improve having them always on the street,” said Aiello. “

There are exceptions to this rule -you may sit on the sidewalk if you have a medical emergency, are attending a parade or festival, or you’re in a wheel chair or baby stroller.

Here is the full text of the ordinance:

In response to increased complaints regarding safety concerns created by obstructed sidewalks, the Monterey City Council adopted Monterey City Code §32-6.2. This ordinance, which goes into effect October 1, 2014, prohibits sitting or lying down on the sidewalk in front of property designated on the General Plan map for mixed use areas (see map) between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 pm.

The ordinance contains exceptions for people: (1) experiencing a medical emergency, (2) using a wheelchair or other device for mobility; (3) for people sitting on a public bench or bus stop; (4) operating or patronizing a commercial establishment conducted on the public sidewalk pursuant to an encroachment permit (e.g., a sidewalk café); (5) participating in or attending a parade, etc. with an event permit or other applicable permit; and (6) a child seated in a stroller. It also requires that no person will be cited without first being given a warning by a peace officer that he/she is violating this section. One warning given by a peace officer is sufficient for a 30 day period for subsequent violations.

Police officers have been actively working to inform people in the designated business districts.

On Monday in Monterey, sitting on the sidewalk was still OK but by Wednesday, you could befacing a citation from police for doing the same.

“They are interfering with my business,” said Joseph Aiello of people who he says are often sitting around outside his jewelry store.

The idea of a sit-lie ordinance has been a longtime coming for Aiello and his business. He says that people loitering outside his shop deters potential customers.

“When they see panhandlers out on the street, they feel uncomfortable and therefore, they walk by real fast to get to where they are going,” said Aiello.

Starting Wednesday, between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m., officers have the authority to tell people to get up from the sidewalk in downtown, Cannery Row and along Fremont Street.

The first offense is a warning.

“For the next 30 days, that warning stays in effect and if you are found doing it again you get a citation,” Monterey police said.

Officers insist they won’t just be targeting homeless individuals.

“If this is something that is applied and and targets a specific group of people, we’re gonna catch a lot of flack for that,” said Monterey Police Chief Phil Penko. “The application is the key.”

Penko say he hopes his department doesn’t have to write a single ticket even though Aiello says his business, a staple on Alvarado Street for the last 30 years, is in trouble and the loitering isn’t helping.

“The downtown businesses are struggling, struggling to stay in business and it does not help or improve having them always on the street,” said Aiello. “

There are exceptions to this rule -you may sit on the sidewalk if you have a medical emergency, are attending a parade or festival, or you’re in a wheel chair or baby stroller.

Here is the full text of the ordinance:

In response to increased complaints regarding safety concerns created by obstructed sidewalks, the Monterey City Council adopted Monterey City Code §32-6.2. This ordinance, which goes into effect October 1, 2014, prohibits sitting or lying down on the sidewalk in front of property designated on the General Plan map for mixed use areas (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 pm.

The ordinance contains exceptions for people: (1) experiencing a medical emergency, (2) using a wheelchair or other device for mobility; (3) for people sitting on a public bench or bus stop; (4) operating or patronizing a commercial establishment conducted on the public sidewalk pursuant to an encroachment permit (e.g., a sidewalk café); (5) participating in or attending a parade, etc. with an event permit or other applicable permit; and (6) a child seated in a stroller. It also requires that no person will be cited without first being given a warning by a peace officer that he/she is violating this section. One warning given by a peace officer is sufficient for a 30 day period for subsequent violations.

Police officers have been actively working to inform people in the designated business districts.

The “Public Safety” Task Force, hand-picked by Mayor Hillary Bryant, has its first meeting tonight at 6 PM in the small Tony Hill sideroom at the Civic Auditorium on Church St. across from City Council chambers. According Continue reading →

NOTES BY NORSE: Using euphemisms and pretexts like “public safety”, “quality of life” “bad behavior”, Santa Cruz mad steadily intensified its anti-homeless Sitting Ban over the years.

The current Santa Cruz law prohibits sitting down on the sidewalk “In the C-C community commercial, C-N neighborhood commercial,C-B commercial beach, CBD central business district, and R-T tourist residential zoning districts, (a) At any bus stop; (b) Within 14′ of any building. Where any portion of a building is recessed from Continue reading →

“Ground Zero” Gary Johnson, sentenced to two years by Judge GrimGavel Gallagher, last year, was “guilty” of four counts of sleeping on the bench in front of the courthouse with a sign “Sleep is Not a Crime”.

He was protesting the 6 PM to 6 AM curfew unilaterally imposed by Susan Mauriello to kill the Occupy Santa Cruz demonstrations.

A three judge panel is expected to rubberstamp Gallagher’s decision, however members of the public are welcome to come and be witnesses to this travesty.

As a tangential but not entirely irrelevant sidenote, the incompetent and relentless prosecutor of the Santa Cruz Eleven, Rebekah Young has left the D.A.’s office as of last Friday and reportedly is going to work as a reporter in Texas.

Today I was found “guilty” of sitting on the sidewalk and ordered to pay $300.
The only problem is that I didn’t sit down….

scpd-officer-travis-ahler…

Today I was found “guilty” of sitting on the sidewalk and ordered to pay $300.
The only problem is that I didn’t sit down until SCPD officer Travis Ahlers ordered me to sit down on the sidewalk.

I had been walking south on Pacific Ave. near the intersection of Laurel St. when I saw officer Ahlers talking to a man who was sitting on the ground. He said, “may I search your backpack?” At which point, from a distance of 10’ away I told the man that he didn’t have to allow the officer to search his belongings. “Tell him NO,” I said. Officer Ahlers turned towards me and told me to sit down and produce my ID. I asked him what the charge was and he said, “For sitting on the ground.”
“I wasn’t sitting down until you told me to sit,” I retorted. He said, “that’ll be for a judge to decide.” Later I found out that the man who was sitting down was under formal probation and was able to be legally searched even without being told before-hand. I didn’t know this when I was reminding him of his 4th Amendment right to the privacy of his person and all of his stuff. Had I known this, I would have said nothing to him.

Well today was my day in court. Since this is an infraction and wouldn’t be heard in a regular court I had commissioner Kim Baskett disqualified so that the case would be heard in a regular court and the officer would have to be sworn in. Finally, on my 5th visit to the courthouse since September on this matter the case was seen by judge Timothy Volkman. I was charged with:

9.50.012 SITTING DOWN ON SIDEWALKS IN DESIGNATED CITY ZONES.
No person shall sit upon the following enumerated portions of a public sidewalk: (b) Within fourteen feet of any building.

The officer said that the ordinance included “squatting” and then offered to tell the judge what the dictionary definition of “squatting” was. The judge declined hearing the definition. I read the ordinance aloud to high-light that it clearly reads “No person shall sit..” The officer said that my buttocks were within 8” of my heels.

With this, the judge found me guilty of sitting on the sidewalk and ordered that I pay $300. The judge said, “this will teach you to leave the police alone while they’re conducting their business.” I said that I’m not being charged with Obstructing an officer, but instead, Sitting on the ground which I obviously didn’t do. The judge said, “I’m siding with the ‘people’ that your are guilty.”

I said that I don’t have the money… I don’t have $10 and I can’t pay. Then I said “I won’t pay. This is not justice. This is a bad cop and you’re a bad judge.” I refused a payment plan or a work program.
I then left the court when the bailiff who was escorting me out said, “If you don’t pay it’ll be twice as much.”

It is true that at the end of this frustrating hearing that I lashed out in classic Brent Adams style. I really couldn’t believe my ears when I was found guilty. Yes, it is just an infraction and yes, its just $300 but isn’t it the principle of the thing? I had not been sitting and yet I was found guilty of sitting down. It is true that I don’t have the money to pay. I will check with the clerks office and try and get on a payment plan or a work program.
I am truly frustrated.

You did everything right at every step of the way, Brent. You took a stand when you thought you saw injustice, and you made these lying pieces of shit work hard to get you. Unfortunately and surprisingly, they pursued you all the way even despite the legal trickery (well played!) of having the ref disqualified in favor of a real judge. You made them work for this one.

Brent. Your story is instructive about how little justice there is in our justice system. Unfortunately the incident wasn’t documented on video. Every Santa Cruzan should read about this so they can understand that when they step into a courtroom they are entering a rigged system. When judges and police officers flout the law with such brazen immunity, how can you expect the criminally inclined to respect the same laws, or to even respect the courts and law enforcement?

The public needs to be educated to start recall campaigns against these rogue judges who mete out injustice with impunity. Alternatively, if you can obtain a copy of the transcript for your trial as evidence of misconduct by the judge, you could send it to the news media and the Judicial Council of California to file a misconduct complaint (against this judge). If enough people mistreated by this judge do the same, eventually this judge may feel some heat.

THOU SHALT NOT COPWATCH
Brent got screwed because he challenged the authority of the cop by watching and commenting. He was obviously not really obstructing or interfering (or he would have been charged with that misdemeanor crime). Nor was he sitting. Leaning and squatting–according to the 2002 debates on the Sitting Ban (which specifically considered that question) rejected “leaning”, much as fashion-conscious merchants wanted to include it.

The Sitting Ban has nothing to do with obstructing the sidewalk, obstructing officers, or public safety. It has to do with obstructing poor and counterculture folks (or anyone the merchants find unsightly) and giving maximum discretion to the police so they can move people along. That’s why Measure S was recently defeated in Berkeley. The Berkeley service providers, three members of the Berkeley City Council and the local ACLU mobilized against it.

Of course, we haven’t heard a peep from Ken Cole (head of the Housing Authority), nor Monica Martinez (Executive Director of the Homeless Lack of Services Center), nor the local ACLU, nor–of course–any City Council members. Our City Council unanimously voted to increase the penalties and scope of the Ban in 2009.

Copwatching is legal and important. I spoke with two observers who witnessed the entire “trial”. Judge Volkman reported reprimanded Adams for his copwatching activity, suggesting it was a “lesson” for him. If “shut up, close your eyes, and keep moving” is the lesson, I suggest we fire the teacher.

BANNING CUSTOMARY AND PRESUMABLY FIRST AMENDMENT-PROTECTED ACTIVITY
The current Sitting Ban (so-called since it bans sitting in 90% of the sidewalk in business, downtown, and beach districts) is a nasty ordinance which has never had a real constitutional challenge (as Berkeley’s did).

9.50.012 Sitting Down on Sidewalks in Designated City Zones: In the C-C community commercial, C-N neighborhood commercial, C-B commercial beach, CBD central business district, and R-T tourist residential zoning districts, no person shall sit upon the following enumerated portions of a public sidewalk: (a) At any bus stop; (b) Within fourteen feet of any building. Where any portion of a building is recessed from the public sidewalk, the fourteen feet shall be measured from the point at which the building abuts the sidewalk; (c) Within fifty feet of any ATM machine or cash disbursal machine, or any other outdoor machine or device which disburses or accepts coins or paper currency except parking meters and newspaper vending machines; (d) Within fourteen feet of any fence that abuts a public sidewalk; (e) Within fourteen feet of any drinking fountain, public telephone, public bench, public trash compactor, information or directory/map sign, sculpture or artwork displayed on public property, or vending cart; (f) Within fourteen feet of any street corner or intersection; (g) Within fourteen feet of any open air dining area or cafe extension; or (h) Within fourteen feet of any kiosk.

Since most sidewalks are 10′ wide in all other places than Pacific Ave, this simply bans sitting where there are buildings–period. It’s designed to “clear away the riffraff” and give us the Shopping Mall look. The latest 2009 twist was to include “sculptures” and “directory signs” as creators of 14′ forbidden zones. As well as increasing penalties on “unattended” tickets to create both (a) a new misdemeanor crime (MC 4.04.015) and (b) the right to charge every subsequent infraction crime, no matter how petty or irrelevant as a misdemeanor ((MC 4.04.010(4)).

TICKETS WITHOUT WARNING
Other ordinances that involve the creation of “forbidden” zones have warning provisions. Benches, for instance, have a ridiculous 1-hour restriction.

On those benches that still remain that is–three have recently been removed on Cooper St., perhaps at the behest of the noxious Nextspace, a Coonerty-founded business.

For instance 9.50.12, Sitting down on Public Benches in Designated Zones, which forbids you to “sit down upon or otherwise occupy a public bench or use a public bench to store property for more than a total of one hour during any given twelve-hour period” has a second provision that “No person shall be cited under this section unless he or she has first been notified by a police officer, public officer or downtown host that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this section, and thereafter continues the violation.”

RESTORING THE CONSTITUTION
Since we have a hopeless City Council, responding to the agenda of Take Back Santa Cruz, the SCPD, the SC Neighbors, and the DTA, I’ve fond the best response is to do what Brent tried to do: point out the abusive behavior of the police, hosts, and private security thugs.

When you do this, I suggest you address passersby, keep at least 10′ away from the incident. Take a step back if asked. Document what you’re doing with a phonevid or some other device, and try to have a second witness with you. Often cops will stop and park their running squad cars in the middle of the street to deal with the “emergency” of a “criminal sitter”.

Alerting the public walking by to this has often, I’ve found, shortened the police action and encouraged them to move on to more sensible priorities.

It’s also quite appropriate to fine a formal Internal Affairs Complaint with the Professional Standards Unit of the SCPD or contact the City’s so-called “Independent” Police Auditor with your concerns. You don’t have to be the target of the abuse. You just have to witness what you felt was wasteful, abusive, or uncalled-for police behavior.

FILING A COMPLAINT
An on-line form to fill out when you witness or experience abusive behavior of any kind from the SCPD can be found at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=9334 . Just make sure you check #5 at the end, indicating it’s a “complaint” and not a “Comment” or any of the other classifications that are essentially irrelevant.

Robert H. Aaronson is the auditor. He wanders in occasionally from his roost in Palo Alto to collect 20Gs a year or more, never bothering to issue a written report that I’ve heard about. Still it makes a record–and that can count later for others who want to make Pitchess Motions in court challenging an officer’s credibility or violent behavior in a future case. Aaronson’s e-mail is not given, but is on the City website as a form at http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/index.aspx?page=983 .His phone is given as 650-565-8800.

Again–the purpose of these is not to expect any kind of justice or accountability. Rather to simply make a record. If you do complain to either Aaronson or the SCPD, please post a copy on line as well.